I Became a Pot Felon at 18. I'm Owed More Than an Apology.

Maybe reparations from the federal government are in order.

When asked why I advocate for legalization of recreational drugs, I give a simple answer: Because the government doesn't know what's best for me or others. But there's another reason, and it's far more personal. Twenty-five years ago, as a college freshman, I was arrested by undercover cops for selling $80 worth of marijuana to fellow students. I was convicted of two felonies: distribution and possession of a narcotic. I spent a month in jail.

Long after the ordeal, I feel resentment at the United States government and the old conservative guard who still mostly run it. It's important to understand that becoming a felon, even for a minor non-violent crime, is no small issue when you're 18 years old. In addition to the government taking away your voting and gun rights, and forcing you to submit to random drug tests, a felony makes it extremely difficult to ever get a normal job. A criminal rap is a serious and derogatory social badge.

You'd think there would be some consolation that since my run-in with the law in 1992, America has been slowly withdrawing from its conservative anti-drug fervor. Currently, 28 states allow medical marijuana use, and eight states now have made recreational use legal. Eventually, pot will likely become legal everywhere, including $80 amounts to students on college campuses.

So all is well, right? Wrong.

Millions of other minor drug offenders like me are left holding the bag. It wasn't just the defamatory criminal sentence many of us received. The government confiscated my Jeep Comanche and my beloved Honda motorcycle during the ordeal. What little money I had I spent on lawyers and judicial filings in our convoluted court system. My total financial loss a quarter of a century ago was $20,000 dollars. Had I been able to invest that money in the stock market, for example, I'd have over $100,000 now.

The American Civil Liberties Union reports that 8.2 million people in America were arrested between 2001 and 2010 for marijuana offenses. The Washington Post says at least 137,000 people sit in US jails on any given day of the week for weed.

Now that the country is on its glacial way to likely legalizing marijuana and taxing the sale of it like it does beer, where is the official apology, to me and all those others? For many of us, an apology—and the government's inevitable mea culpa when they likely make pot legal across the land—won't be enough.

Some of us also want compensation for the financial damage forced upon us—for the literal theft of our property. Maybe that means a class action lawsuit insisting on government reparation for all damage caused, maybe in the form of tax credits or proceeds from the sale of unused Federal land, so as not to abuse the American taxpayer further over the drug war. It's safe to say—given the damage caused and the lives affected—such a suit would likely be in the billions of dollars.

Whatever happens, don't expect minor drug offenders to forget the harm Uncle Sam has caused now that smoking a joint is finally becoming legal and acceptable.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Long after the ordeal, I feel resentment at the United States government and the old conservative guard who still mostly run it.

The drug war will do that to its victims. But you should at least take consolation and maybe some pride of the small part you played in the extra votes politicians got and the overtime some criminal justice workers collected.

As far as the law goes, I’m sure you are right. At least if it’s just a change in the law and not a finding that the whole thing was unconstitutional (which is not something I expect to happen although it’s something that should happen regarding federal drug laws).

In law, when one is convicted of a crime, even when the criminal acts is later made legal, people in prison serve out their sentences.

Suppose, for example, a state has an “age of consent” set at 18. A person has sex with someone who is under age… say 17. The law changes the next day. The individual can still be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and required to serve out their full sentence.

In the case of pot – those in jail for possessing pot do not “get out of jail free” when it’s legalized. Suppose someone is serving a 5-year term for possession with intent to distribute. A year into his sentence, the state legalizes pot. His brother comes up with enough cash to buy a pile of pot and opens a STORE to distribute it. Too bad. The brother in jail stays there for four more years.

My torts instructor said it best (quoting Mr. Brumble from Dicken’s in Oliver Twist)… “The Law is a Ass”.

I’ve never been a user of illegal drugs – but I fundamentally believe that it’s the right of individuals to do whatever they choose to themselves. We don’t penalize people for getting tattoos, overeating, or having bad haircuts. Why should we fret when they decide to improve/poison themselves by taking drugs?

To make a change to this approach to law might require violent revolution, so ingrained it is into our current system.

If it’s any consolation (and I know it isn’t much), I believe in stealth jury nullification. If I ever get called to jury duty, and if I can’t see real harm (assault, theft), then the evidence will be fishy and nothing will change my mind. I will never convict someone for violating legislation, only for violating natural law.

That’s pretty accurate – conservative, actually. In Federal court 97% do not go to trial. In state courts, it’s more like 94%. Most are resolved via plea bargain or by dismissal of charges.

If every criminal case went to trial, the entire criminal legal system would collapse. Imagine every criminal defendant demanding a jury trial and exercising their right to speedy trial! In most cases, “speedy” trial isn’t all that quick – but it’s still usually on the order of a year, give or take, for a felony. So in the Federal realm, if the case load suddenly increased by a factor of THIRTY, and in state courts it increased by a factor of SIXTEEN, it would be all over.

Prosecutors would be forced to prosecute only the most serious crimes. 90% of defendants would walk.

So why don’t criminals go to trial?

Well, the game the prosecutors play is, “If you plead guilty, you get a month in jail on a misdemeanor and 1 year probation. If you are convicted at trial, you get 10-15 years in prison and a felony record.” In fact, the system is already so overloaded that even criminals who have committed serious crimes often plead out to trivial punishments. Unfortunately, the same level of coercion is often applied to both the guilty and the innocent. Additionally, penalties often have no relationship to the seriousness of the crime. A person can get less time for stabbing someone than for selling some drugs to a friend.

“It’s important to understand that becoming a felon, even for a minor non-violent crime, is no small issue when you’re 18 years old. In addition to the government taking away your voting and gun rights, and forcing you to submit to random drug tests, a felony makes it extremely difficult to ever get a normal job. A criminal rap is a serious and derogatory social badge.” So you didn’t just use illegal drugs, you sold them. Not one crime but two. I am sure you sold to younger than 18 year olds in college too. Real class act you are. But hey you’ve done the crime and your time- second chances and all.

I am sure you have been on the front lines trying to get drugs legalized ever since.

Having a 25 year old felony does not make getting a good job difficult. If you are that worried about it, never tell the potential employer. Most back ground checks only go back 7 years. You were convicted before the internet ruled everything, so only a good FBI check will usually find your old record.

I think drugs should be legal but I really don’t have any sympathy for people who are more worried that they got caught violating the law than changing the law.

Murder has also been legal in various forms throughout American and human history. Changing the law isn’t required to act morally. Also, changing the law is difficult, and may not ever happen int he manner you believe best. Demanding others stop violence/theft (enforcement) towards you is a stupid bet, frankly.

“loveconstitution1789” – Have you ever read the Constitution? Are you familiar with the concept of “enumerated powers”? (If not, go educate yourself before reading further.)

…

Back?

Good.

Now show me the part of the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate pot. Go look. I’ll wait.

… … … Well, I’m not going to wait forever!! Find it?

No – you didn’t. It’s not in there.

In fact, if the Feds were to going to have the legitimate authority to regulate drugs, they would have to do what they did when they (foolishly) tried to regulate alcohol… pass an AMENDMENT.

Until they do, the very act of passing Federal Drug Laws is ultra vires. It’s a fraud. A sham. A lie. A cheat. It’s an offense to the Constitution and to liberty.

Buy a clue.

The whole canard of Federal drug authority hinges on the holding of Wickard v. Filburn which determined that interstate commerce included growing wheat on your own land for your own use – not one grain of which would ever even leave the farm, let alone be bought or sold. That’s right. Going what on your own land for your own use is “Commerce BETWEEN THE STATES!” Look it up.

Now, don’t you feel like a dumb ass for championing unconstitutional Federal actions?

I view the Constitution as not only setting up the legitimate powers of the Federal Government – but as a contract between the government and the People. When one side of a contract does not perform, the other side is generally freed from their terms of the contract. If you offer to paint my house for $1000, and I accept, your failure to paint relieves me of my obligation to pay.

By the same token, a government that does not honor the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution is directly violating the contract between the government and the People. The People should then be free from their part of the contract – which includes honoring ANY Federal laws.

If the taxpayers don’t want to be liable for reparations they can repeal and refuse to enact evil laws. Your tax money isn’t being used – the prohibitionists’ tax money is. Ypur tax money is going to something else. It’s all collectivized.

Well, I’m not sure I’d be up for paying “damages”, but even if one were, I’d expect those to come from taxes on the sale of pot. After all, those who approved banning pot should morally NEVER be allowed to profit from it.

There’s no better motivator of opinion than experience. You guys should be all over giving felons the right to vote. What could be a better way to boost meaningful public sentiment against the US’s police state and drug war monstrosities?

And in general, I am. Basically, when someone leaves prison, they should have a clean slate. And that means, for most purposes, no criminal record. (The exception would be in determining punishment in the case of repeat offenses.) That means if someone commits murder and gets out in 7 years, they don’t have to tell everyone they committed murder. If that’s not satisfactory, then make the sentences longer. The crap about making “sex offenders” register for life is pure nonsense. Given them a sentence, let them serve it, and then let them reset and try again.

Repeat offenders get heavier sentences.

I’ve long thought that most prison sentences were too long and too pleasant. Humans can adapt to almost anything – it’s what we’re best at. So use sentence to SHOCK the offender. First offense burglary? 6 months in HELL! Put them in a tent prison in Arizona. Let Arpaio run it. Same food every day. No diversions. Nothing. Just tents and cots and pink underwear. At the end of six months, turn them loose. Maybe even give them some rehab training. Clear their record. Let them know that next time it’s 5 years in solitary confinement in a 6′ x 8′ concrete cube.

Ok, maybe I caught carried away with my last post. But I am appalled by your complete complete lack of empathy for somebody who got totally fucked over by the government for something that should be legal. He was put in a cage, suffered a huge financial loss and had his reputation and career prospects greatly harmed. For something less intoxicating than a glass of beer. But hey I guess it’s no big deal if it’s not you.

If pot smokers spent as much voting for people that would repeal drug laws and/or run themselves as they do smoking, we might have more legal drugs by now.

I mean the federal drug laws are unconstitutional. There is no enumerated power that authorizes the federal government to ban substances. In fact, even the people who made alcohol illegal knew that and got a constitutional amendment ratified.

“General welfare” “Interstate commerce” The list is endless, if you want to ban something. You can even ban stuff directly “protected” by the constitution. You can even take stuff from folks that is entirely legal to own, and do not even have to charge them with anything. So cry me a river.

Sorry there is no case of the Founders ever banning a substance. Even alcohol was taxed to prevent use not banned.

Even the Alcohol prohibition movement knew the constitution did not authorize banning a substance, so they amended the constitution. Why would they do that if banning substances was permissible for government?

The “general welfare” clause is a limit on federal power; it says that the federal government may only act for the purpose of the general welfare (as opposed to the benefit of individual states or groups).

The interstate commerce clause has been perverted; its function until the end of the 19th century was to limit states in interfering with interstate commerce.

But I am appalled by your complete complete lack of empathy for somebody who got totally fucked over by the government for something that should be legal.

I get “fucked over” every April 15 by the US government. If I didn’t comply with the law, I’d get fucked over even more, and nobody would shed a tear for me or “pay me restitution”.

We don’t live in a libertarian paradise, we live in a progressive welfare state. If you violate its laws, you suffer the consequences. Deal with it. And pretending that other people are responsible for the bad choices you make is not a libertarian view, even if those bad choices involve violating non-libertarian laws.

Playing by wrongful rules is a practical choice not a moral one. The moral issue is that those harmed by wrongful laws deserve reparations regardless if they with full knowlege “chose” not to comply with said wrongful law. Society actually IS to blame.

Nope. My definition of right and wrong is based on my personal belief system. But I stay aware of where my system, and the system of the man diverge, and am fully aware of the possible consequences for any ‘right’ act in my system that is ‘wrong’ in his. And will accept the results if I am careless.

(you’ll have to remove the spaces from the URLS – Stupid Reason restriction on “word length”) Five years in prison for throwing out junk mail! Felony for trying to find arrowheads!http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution /2013/06/no-one-is-innocent.html

You receive fish that’s packaged in plastic instead of paper. You called in sick when you really weren’t. You get lost in a blizzard. You tell someone about a problem with computer security.https://mic.com/articles/86797/8- ways-we-regularly-commit -felonies-without-realizing-it#.4qxygmPXc

Yeah, I am against that because where does the government get their money? My taxes. Fuck that. This prick can play the lottery because he’s got a better chance of getting that money than mine (by proxy through the government).

Money, get back I’m all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack Money, it’s a hit Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit I’m in the high-fidelity first class traveling set And I think I need a Lear jet

I would favor reparations if the expense could be limited to those responsible… for example, the politicians who passed the legislation, the cops and judges who knew it was unconstitutional. That sort of thing.

The war on drugs is and can only be a war on the American people. That said, when the author was selling marijuana he knew it was against the law and was aware of potential penalties. He is the only person responsible for his taking that risk and its outcome. Seems he’s a candidate for governor in California. He’ll fit right in. California is full of pussies who want to blame everyone else for their own mistakes.

raise taxes? He’s libertarian. He won’t do that. It can be taken out of other things like law enforcement and prison budgets. Take it out of narc pensions. If the taxpayers don’t want to pay reparations, they can refuse to enact evil laws.

I think this place is being taken over by stupid conservative rednecks. Moral condemnation of a guy because “he knew it was against the law!” on a pro-drug legalization article? What garbage is this? Oh well. *Cracks fingers.* All the more fun for me!

It’s not a moral question it’s an actuarial one. If you run across a field chances are good you’ll do so safely. If you run across a freeway chances are good you’ll get hurt. The cars on the freeway aren’t ‘good’ or ‘bad’, they’re a known danger. Regardless of whether laws are just or unjust willful violators of them often incur known risks. Should marijuana use be completely legal? Absolutely. What people are condemning him for is being a pussy who doesn’t take responsibility for his own informed actions. His next article will probably be about taxpayers paying reparations for his losing lottery tickets.

Strawman argument. Apples and oranges. Libertarianism is about fully informed, consenting adults being free to make their own decisions, good or bad, and then live with the consequences. It isn’t about the government robbing people at gunpoint to compensate people who knowingly made bad choices.

Great! A looter conservative prohibitionist infiltrator in here to lock horns with a looter socialist infiltrator. Neither realizes that the Libertarian party has to do with alternatives to the initiation of force as understood by an immigrant writer while conservative Christian socialists were stretching ropes at Nuremberg.

If the taxpayers don’t want liability for evil laws, they shouldn’t be enacting, enforcing or refusing to repeal them. Taxes don’t have to be raised. Just take the reparations out of law enforcement, prison and foreign intervention budgets. Take out of all the expeditures the drug prohibitionists love. And tough shit if the drug prohibitionists are forced to pay taxes that go to reparations rather than the shit they love. Fuck them.

“How can you blame a victim of that unjust regime for being a victim of it?”

He’s not being blamed for being a victim. He’s being blamed for trying to make others (some who weren’t even born at the time) pay for the cost of his choice to take the risk he took.

Supposing he was never caught and went on to profit handsomely from his pot sales. Do you think he’d be writing an article expressing gratitude for his good fortune, and offering to give away some of the money he earned?

In what other ways do you think the government should refrain from acting in the interest of achieving justice? What about when they intervene after someone breaks into your house? Those are my tax dollars paying for that, you layabout!

“But there was nothing wrong with the choices he made, only the consequences for them.”

Wrong or not, irrelevant to the subject. He was harmed by the predictable consequences of his choice and now he wants others to make him whole. Which will harm those forced to do so, who will have no choice in the matter. Who do they turn to, to be made whole for the harm caused them?

Good point: reimbursing victims means less money left to spend on making new victims, and less incentive to victimize people as well – as long as it’s not used as an excuse to raise taxes. For the same reason an inefficient, wasteful state is preferable to an efficient and effective one: less funds and competence for their continuous scapegoating of people and prosecution of wars on them.

The drug warriors will make him whole. Take the reparations out all the things they love without raising taxes – like law enforcement, prisons and fpreign intervention. Redirect all the drug war money and narc pension money towards reparations. That way, it will be the drug prohibitionists who will pay with their tax money.

When I was much younger, I was pulled over by the CHP for no front licence p!ate. I had just lawfully bought the car, and I had the front plate, but the bracket was broken, and I was on my way home to fix it. Anyway, the officer asks to search my car, and being young and naive, I asked, “on what grounds”? He replied, (verbatim), ” I have none, but if you refuse consent, you must have something to hide, and thats probable cause”. So he searches anyway, and after tossing my stuff in the weeds along the highway, he eventually finds a sandwich bag on the floor that had once held leftover pizza. In the corner, there remained a small remanint of cheese, sauce, and mushroom. 0.6 of a gram, I would come to find out. He took me to jail, not for ‘shrooms’, but for felony possession peyote! Being a home schooled pastors son, I didn’t even know what that was! He also relieved me of valuable, lawfully owned property, while explaining what scum I was, and how smart and highly trained he was! After stubbornly refusing many plea deals, and spending thousands of dollars, and missing work and sports practices to appear at many court dates, all of a sudden, the charges were dropped. Gas Chromatography /mass spectrometry results proved what I had said all along! To this day, I have a felony drug arrest record! That retarded, incompetent, thieving, self described “hero”, did however, provide me with my first libertarian moment.

You were a victim of a system that routinely abuses innocent people to the point of mental, physical, and financial exhaustion such that they’re willing to take any ‘deal’ just to make the bad men go away. Thankfully you didn’t let them win. Kudos to you.

I wouldn’t want to re-victimize the tax paying citizens whom were forced to fund my initial ordeal, but I would certainly enjoy being ‘made whole’ again, (via a lawsuit) against the statist retard whom falsely kidnapped, robbed, and held me for ransom, (bail). And whom committed several constitutional violations in order to keep the people safe from me for several hours. Alas, I did make such an attempt, but soon learned that the California highway patrol takes dim view of any ‘customer’ complaints, and prioritizes the efforts to con vince their employers from making any trouble. I was robbed by a highwayman, but having limited law enforcement resources directed at ‘discouraging’ my complaint, proved their true terrorist nature.

“Like many entrepreneurs, I became a libertarian because of one simple concept: reason. It just made sense to embrace a philosophy that promotes maximum freedom and personal accountability.”

How does expecting reparations for the consequences of one’s voluntary actions fit into “embracing a philosophy that promotes personal accountability”? Looks more like evading personal accountability, if you ask me.

But your initial instinct was to completely ignore the taxes poor people pay as if they don’t exist and then actually defend government caring more about the great burden that the ultra-wealthy must bear.

No, because, as I said, if you’re a business owner, your payroll taxes are much higher.

Your employer matches what YOU pay in payroll taxes, and gives that to the government. Now count up all the employees. Take the payroll taxes that they pay out of their wages. Your employer ALSO pays that amount to the government. For each and every employee.

Payroll taxes affect small business owners far more than they affect the poor and middle class.

The poor get FAR MORE back from the government than they pay in taxes. How do I know?

Born and raised in Detroit. And any naive fool that thinks “welfare queens” are a myth are invited to visit and see it first hand.

Depends on the state. The poor may avoid sales taxes on many foods. The really poor do not pay sales tax on gasoline, or gasoline taxes, because they cannot afford a car. All the payroll taxes I know about are flat rate, so they do not affect the poor more than others. Income taxes, being biased against the better compensated, affect them LESS. And often offset the taxes the ‘poor’ do pay through ‘refunds’ of money not paid. I’ve been what you consider rich, and I’ve been what I consider poor. I paid more taxes when rich.

Hell no; that is why I went out and got rich. All by my lonesome, without a single dime from any government at any level. And now I sit here and hope Tony has a job so his Social Security taxes go straight into my pocket the next month.

How does expecting reparations for the consequences of one’s voluntary actions fit into “embracing a philosophy that promotes personal accountability”? Looks more like evading personal accountability, if you ask me.

If I say I’m going to punch you in the face if you smoke weed, and then you smoke weed and I punch you in the face and break your nose, I think I probably at the very least owe you repayment for your medical bills.

I don’t see any difference between this and people being punished for drug offenses by the government, morally speaking.

Legally you are probably right. But morally you don’t bear accountability for the harm you suffer when people violate your rights, even if you could reasonably predict that those people would violate your rights.

You’re incorrectly assuming that in a libertarian world, he could have smoked weed without consequences. In fact, in a libertarian world, there would likely be other mechanisms for punishing him for his use of weed: his insurance company might drop him, his landlord might kick him out, his employer might fire him, etc.

This guy is going to be a great candidate for governor. But only in California. He spent over $20,000.00 on a losing drug case. And can’t get over it. Fits right in with the high speed rail and all, doesn’t it. If he wins, maybe he will be the one to finally get secession done.

More and more these days I feel like the majority of “libertarians” really just want to smoke pot and couldn’t give less of a fuck about limiting the role of government in general. If Obamacare started covering blunts you know they’d all be singing the praises of that in a hearbeat.

To me, it’s not a question of government not “knowing what’s best for me,” as the article starts off. Whether something is good, bad, or indifferent to me — it is none of their damn business.

This is the problem with the whole tone of pot legalization these days. The argument is usually that it’s not that unhealthy and is safer than alcohol. Who cares? The argument should be that there isn’t any victim. All kinds of choices I can make are patently unhealthy for me but I am free to make them if I want to be stupid. Say I decided to eat chocolate cake and nothing else but that for breakfast lunch and dinner. Health wise, that would probably be not too far off from being going on heroin, yet the only victim would be me – of my own stupidity. And the baker selling me a couple of full size cakes each day wouldn’t have to worry about prosecution. That is as it should be. It comes down to freedom for adults to make choices for themselves, even if those choices are ill-advised.

Aegis: When some are given the power to make rules for all, enforce them, and decide if they have done so in a just manner, within limits they swore to abide by, then they become tyrants. For proof, see every govt.

The often heard complaint of “no authority” or overreach is useless against TPTB. It is the self enslaved begging the master to be less coercive. It is the failure of the victim to take responsibility for his/her part in the ruled/ruler paradigm. If you want justice, rights, social stability, peace, and prosperity, then you have to stop supporting govt. by force and start demanding a voluntary society.

1992?! A month?! Spare a thought for veterans of the Summer of Love. When Tricky Dick Nixon was sworn in, any 18-year-old caught with a fistful of hemp seeds or roots was easily up for five years in the slammer! And if I were still living in the Haight I would definitely support and vote for Zoltan. California was the state most ruined by asset-forfeiture looting, and most betrayed by the National Democratic Party’s fixation with carbon taxes and energy bans RATHER THAN repeal of prohibition laws such as stopped America’s economic collapse in 1932. It’s time Democratic voters realize they’ve been betrayed by Ecological National Socialist fifth columnists, get hip, and git a rope!

I am sorry you were treated badly and you surely didn’t deserve it, but there is no legal process available to compensate you and others who are victims of the war on drugs. The best any of us can do is to speak out and help end the insanity.

There are few people in the US who can’t claim to be victims of violence from the government, in one form or another. There is no remedy for past wrongs.

I am sorry you were treated badly and you surely didn’t deserve it, but there is no legal process available to compensate you and others who are victims of the war on drugs. The best any of us can do is to speak out and help end the insanity.

There are few people in the US who can’t claim to be victims of violence from the government, in one form or another. There is no remedy for past wrongs.

I would hope all victims of govt. coercion would learn (or in my case, relearn) that govt. is not reason but exploitive violence. Asking the beneficiary of the violence to appologize is irrational, especially if you forfeited your sovereignty (voted) to be ruled. Without sovereignty no rights are possible.

Voting to be ruled is a mistake but it’s your life and your right to be self destructive. It’s not your right to believe your choice is universal becasue you are in a big group. The 99% can not violate the rights of the 1%, morally, only physically by brute force. Might does not make you right. It makes you a statist, an authoritarian, and an asshole.

Legalization of a drug or all drugs is recognization of the authority of some to control what everyone ingests. That law can be reversed. Once control is conceeded, no principle, no basis for complain about the consequences can invalidate the harm done. The controller can always cite the authority and claim good intention, while continuing the harm.

Decriminalization of an act is recognition that no authority exists in relation to that act. Govt. will NEVER voluntarily relinquish authority. Power breeds power, until it destroys the society that granted it, that let itself be ruled.